Radhesshyam Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 4

CGHC010243772026

2026:CGHC:29326

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 5266 of 2026

¶7

Radhesshyam Chauhan S/o J.R. Chauhan Aged About 42 Years R/o Quarter No 581/A Sector -3 Balco Nagar, Korba (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Labour, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Branch Manager G-4S Secure Solutions India Pvt Ltd Korba Unit District Korba (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) Through Its Managing Director / H R Head Balco Nagar Korba District Korba (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Assistant Labour Commissioner Korba District Korba (C.G.)

¶14

5 - M/s G4s Through- Chief Executive Officer Bharat Aluminum Company Limited Balco, Dist- Korba (C.G.)

¶15

6 - Assistant Labour Commissioner Korba Dist- Korba (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. Vivek Verma, GA

¶18

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

13/07/2026

¶21

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.07.14 18:22:34 +0530

¶22

By way of the instant petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

¶23

2 / 4

¶24

10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join duties forthwith in pursuance of reinstatement order dated 04.12.2025.

¶25

10.2 Issue an appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the entire suspension period along with interest.

¶26

10.3 Issue an appropriate writ directing the respondents to release full wages/salary from the date of reinstatement order till actual joining.

¶27

10.4 Declare the inaction of the respondents in not permitting joining and not paying subsistence allowance as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

¶28

10.5 Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

10.6 Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.

¶30

At the outset, the maintainability of the writ petition requires consideration. A perusal of the cause title and the relief clause reveals that the grievance of the petitioner essentially arises out of the order of suspension passed by respondent No.2, namely G4S Secure Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., a private company, and the consequential acts allegedly committed by the said respondent. The principal reliefs sought by the petitioner are directed against respondent No.2 for permitting him to

¶31

3 / 4

¶32

resume duties, payment of subsistence allowance and release of wages.

¶33

It is well settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily not exercisable for enforcement of contractual obligations against a purely private body, unless such body is shown to be discharging a public duty or performing a public function amenable to writ jurisdiction. Mere impleadment of the State or its authorities as formal parties would not confer maintainability upon a writ petition where the substantive dispute is essentially between a private employer and its employee arising out of a contract of employment.

¶34

In the present case, the petitioner has neither pleaded nor demonstrated that respondent No.2 is a statutory authority, an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, or a body discharging any public or statutory duty in relation to the impugned action. The reliefs claimed pertain exclusively to the service relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and seek enforcement of alleged service rights flowing from such relationship. Such disputes are essentially private in nature and cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶35

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition, insofar as it seeks reliefs against respondent No.2, a private company, is not maintainable. The petitioner, if so advised, is at liberty to avail such remedy as may be available to him under the applicable labour laws or before the competent forum in accordance with law.

¶36

4 / 4

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before the competent forum. No order as to costs.

¶38

SD/-

¶39

SD/- ( Bibhu Datta Guru ) JUDGE

¶40

ashu

Radhesshyam Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhesshyam Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs Shri Mukesh Kumar Bansal

Sanjay Kumar Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ramkumari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Prashant Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bharat Ram Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Pushpa Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh